Effect of a Veterans Health Administration mandate to case review patients with opioid prescriptions on mortality among patients with opioid use disorder: a secondary analysis of the STORM randomized control trial

Orlando Veterans Affairs Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) very high risk interdisciplinary team review: A brief report

BACKGROUND

Compared to the general population, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients have higher rates of mental illness, chronic pain, and substance use disorders (SUD), conditions that increase risk for opioid-related adverse events. VHA developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) and mandated case reviews by an interdisciplinary team (IDT) for patients identified as very high risk, a process implemented and led by clinical pharmacist practitioners at the Orlando Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (OVAHCS) in 2018.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and describe the implementation and process for IDT reviews of patients identified as very high risk by the STORM clinical decision support tool at OVAHCS.

METHODS

A single center, retrospective, observational chart review was conducted. Veterans reviewed by the STORM IDT between January and September 2018 were reviewed for change in Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (MEDD), naloxone, nonopioid analgesics, medications for SUD, benzodiazepines, engagement with clinical services (e.g., mental health, SUD, and pain clinic), and overdose or suicide attempts in the year prior versus the year after IDT review. The frequency of follow-up IDT reviews was evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients were identified. Four were excluded due to nonopioid related death within 12 months after review. The average baseline MEDD was 82.2 mg (range 10-496 mg) and average 12 months after review was 7.5 mg (range 0 - 67.5 mg), a decrease of 74.7 mg, or 90.9% reduction. An increase in medications for SUD (3 patients; 23%), SUD engagement (3 to 6 patients), and urine drug tests was observed (79% increase). Benzodiazepine use decreased by 50%.

CONCLUSION

This report provides insight on the IDT case review process at OVAHCS, a process that may vary widely across facilities. A reduction in MEDD, increase in SUD treatment, and improved risk mitigation was observed. The central role of clinical pharmacy and expanded process for continued follow-up warrants further study.

A call for better validation of opioid overdose risk algorithms

Clinical decision support (CDS) systems powered by predictive models have the potential to improve the accuracy and efficiency of clinical decision-making. However, without sufficient validation, these systems have the potential to mislead clinicians and harm patients. This is especially true for CDS systems used by opioid prescribers and dispensers, where a flawed prediction can directly harm patients. To prevent these harms, regulators and researchers have proposed guidance for validating predictive models and CDS systems. However, this guidance is not universally followed and is not required by law. We call on CDS developers, deployers, and users to hold these systems to higher standards of clinical and technical validation. We provide a case study on two CDS systems deployed on a national scale in the United States for predicting a patient's risk of adverse opioid-related events: the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM), used by the Veterans Health Administration, and NarxCare, a commercial system.